Argument2【0806G-Sunbird小组】第二次作业

toumingsenlinUID: 2344846

TOPIC: ARGUMENT2 - The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres.

"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting."
WORDS: 482          TIME: 00:40:55          DATE: 2007-11-6 22:41:44

In this argument, the author comes to a conclusion that homeowners should adopt their own set of restriction on landscaping and house painting in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. The basis for the recommendation is that the average property values of Brookville community tripled after taking measures on landscaping and housepainting. An additional reason given in support of this recommendation is that the property values of Deerhaven Acres will be raised after fashioning after Brookvile community's improvement actions. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

To begin with, the author suffers from a fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in assuming that improvements in landscaping and housepainting in Brookville community is the cause of the increase of property values. However, the evidence inevitably set the claim in question because a mere chronological relationship is only one of the indicators of a causal relationship and, therefore does not necessarily prove it. To establish a general causal relationship between improvement measuers including landscaping and housepainting and the property values, other factors that could result in the raise of property values should be considered. For example, the population in Brookville community may increase and the need for house rise correspondingly. While the new houses are limited and can not satisfy the increasing needs. So the price is high in Brookville community. It is also possible that a project of metro has been finished which leading to the convenience in traffic. The property values actually owes to this point. The author's failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for property values renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

Furthermore, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy in assuming that Deerhaven Acres will achieve the same result as Brookville community did seven years ago. The reasoning is questionable because similarities between two events, and the environments in which they are hold , may not be sufficient enough to warrant this claim. For example, a chemistry factory close to Deerhaven Acres polluted the air heavily and leading to the decrease of property values. The values can not be raised if the root of pollution can not be resolved. Apparently, differences between Brookville community and Deerhaven Acres clearly overweigh the surface similarities, thus making the analogy untenable. In either event, only relying on such a simply mimicry of landscaping and housepainting, there would be little effective.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning the relationship between measures of landscaping and housepainting and property values. To better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete evidence that these two communities are the same in all other respects except for landscaping and housepainting. Otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

javen3721UID: 2332354

In this argument, the author comes to a conclusion that homeowners should adopt their own set of restriction on landscaping and house painting in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. The basis for the recommendation is that the average property values of Brookville community tripled after taking measures on landscaping and housepainting. An additional reason given in support of this recommendation is that the property values of Deerhaven Acres will be raised after fashioning after [according to] Brookvile community's improvement actions. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

To begin with, the author suffers from a fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"(不过我听有些人说最好不要用拉丁文，ETS的考官不大喜欢那些很专业的逻辑名词，不知道是不是真的，不过还是赞一个，语言功底超强啊~~~) in assuming that improvements in landscaping and housepainting in Brookville community is the cause of the increase of property values. However, the evidence inevitably set the claim in question because a mere chronological relationship is only one of the indicators of a causal relationship and, therefore does not necessarily prove it. To establish a general causal relationship between improvement measuers[measures] including landscaping and housepainting and the property values, other factors that could result in the raise of property values should be considered [ruled out是不是更好一点和establish呼应]. For example, the population in Brookville community may increase and the need for house rise [would rise] correspondingly. While the new houses are limited and can not satisfy the increasing needs. So the price is high in Brookville community. It is also possible that a project of metro has been finished which leading(leads,这个是定语从句吗？) to the convenience in traffic. The property values actually owes（owe） to this point. The author's failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for property values renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

Furthermore, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy in assuming that Deerhaven Acres will achieve the same result as Brookville community did seven years ago. The reasoning is questionable because similarities between two events, and the environments in which they are hold(疑问中？希望指点,没有见过这个用法) , may not be sufficient enough to warrant this claim. For example, a chemistry factory close to Deerhaven Acres polluted（pollutes） the air heavily and leading(leads)to the decrease of property values. The values can not be raised if the root of pollution can not be resolved. Apparently, differences between Brookville community and Deerhaven Acres clearly overweigh the surface similarities, thus making the analogy untenable. In either event, only relying on such a simply mimicry of landscaping and housepainting, there would be little effective.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning the relationship between measures of landscaping and housepainting and property values. To better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete evidence that these two communities are the same in all other respects except for landscaping and housepainting. Otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

文思泉涌，文笔流畅，说理透彻，结构清晰,句型变化丰富，具有相当强的语言驾驭能力，羡慕ing~~~~~~~当作范文收藏了~~
PS:闪光句型太多了,闪的我都一楞一楞的了,就不一一画出了,请见谅拉`````

[ 本帖最后由 javen3721 于 2007-11-23 17:35 编辑 ]